Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBJDiN000231; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:44:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:44:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000d01c18891$47b0f760$0e00a8c0@Leah> Errors-To: alcrsb@langate.gsu.edu Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Leah Carpenter" <lcarp@kih.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:1839] Re: alert -- Aside X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2626 Lines: 57 I personally do not think that this administration would be nearly as concerned for the women in Afghanistan if it were not one of the issues being used to make a war seem more legitimate.This Heritage Foundation information infuriates me. This group keeps popping up in matters that involve people loosing their rights. Any suggestions? I know that I have a whole group of women & teens who will want to do something. -----Original Message----- From: Dana Cooper <d7cooper@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:01 AM Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:1836] Re: alert -- Aside >Gail Spangenberg <gspangenberg@caalusa.org> wrote: ><snip> >>Strange for the administration not to be as resolute where American >>women are concerned as they appear to be about women's rights and the >>role of women in Afghanistan. Gail > >Gail, > >Pardon, the aside, but I doubt that when the administration mouths concern >about the Afghani women that they care about those women's plight. I think >that they are sprouting that womenconcernspeak to hit American buzzwords and >to placate Americans who believe the military actions are too harsh. (Part >of the bomb on one hand and feed with the other scene.) American people >cannot expect to change years of Afghani sins against Afghani women >overnight. A "new" cause is born. And if we are pointing out the iniquities >that the Afghani women suffer, American women's suffering and problems seem >less so by comparison. (At least, I imagine that that is the mindset behind >some of the surface sympathy rising.) > >I am not trying to diminish the pains of women in other countries or to say >that the problems of American women are nothing in comparison -- that >depends on individual situations -- there might be American women living >lives even more horrific than those lived by some Afghani women. Nor do I >begrudge the Afghani women any assistance they could receive from their own >people, Americans, or other interested parties. > >What I find disturbing is this redirection of the American attention -- See >Afghani women suffer -- while there are all these unsympathetic, anti-women >activities on our homefront. It's like a feed 'em, bomb 'em duality acted >out. Offer "support" for Afghani women while reducing support for American >women. Not so much a case of the "two" causes being in conflict, but one >cause being used to distract from another. > >Dana > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:32:25 EST